ON THE STIGMELLA-NEPTICULA CONTROVERSY (LEPIDOPTERA) by CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON Biological Laboratories, Free University, Amsterdam With two plates Ever since the genus Stigmella was first described by Schrank in 1802 and Nepticula by Von Heyden in 1843, both generic names have been in common use for the same group of leaf-mining micro-lepidoptera. This paper presents the case for and against each name, but since it is clear from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1964) (subsequently referred to as the Code) which is correct, it is also a plea for conformity in future amongst leaf-miner specialists. Monographs have been completed on the moths of this genus occurring in Canada and USA and are in preparation for Europe and South Africa. These publications, together with the leaf-miner volume of the Moths of North America, will adopt the recommendations made here. My co-workers in this field concur with the principles of this paper and include Dr. Don. R. Davis, Chairman Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., USA, and my former research assistants M. J. Scoble, Department of Entomology, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa and Philip J. Newton, Entomologist, Perifleur Ltd., Rustington, UK. Although the name Stigmella (Schrank, 1802: 169) is older, Nepticula Heyden (1843: 208) has been used for generic descriptions twice as often during the past 134 years. The great majority of described species were originally combined with Nepticula. In the early days Nepticula was probably used in ignorance of Stigmella, but latterly attempts have been made to discredit Stigmella on the grounds that it is a nomen dubium (e.g. Borkowski, 1972; Lempke, 1976) or a nomen nudum (e.g. Busck, 1913; Braun, 1917). Heyden's description oï Nepticula is very much more satisfactory and leaves one in no doubt regarding the group of insects to which the name refers. He further establishes the genus on a sound basis by assigning to it five species: aurelia F., argentipedella Z., centifoliella Z., sericopeza A., and cursoriella Hdn. Unless otherwise stated the first species cited was often taken as type and aurelia was subsequently designated type-species by Tutt ( 1 899: 1 84). This contrasts with the older Stigmella, the description of which is rather inadequate and no species are cited. The German description (Plate 1) and English translation are given because of their importance. 13
BioStor
